Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract starts with “disclosed herein.”
The abstract fails to state of the technical disclosure of the patent, and fails to include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Instead, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention.
Line 1 & 5: “In an example …”
Line 6, 7, and 8 (twice): “Additionally or alternatively…”
The last sentence, “Additionally or alternatively, the includes a MME…” does not state what includes the MME.
Appropriate corrections are required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ [0004] “Additionally or alternatively, the includes a mobility management entity (MME) non-terrestrial (NT).” This line fails to state what is including the MME NT.
¶ [0128] “Additionally or alternatively, the network includes a satellite. Additionally, or alternatively, the includes an MME-NT.” This line fails to state what is including the MME NT.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-7, 12, and 16-18 (hereinafter referred to as “application claims” for clarity) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 10, and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/903,938 (US Pub 20260095877) (hereinafter referred to as “reference application”) in view of US Pub 20250038834 (originally filed 07/24/2024 under application number 18/783,099) (hereinafter referred to as "Ou").
Application claim 1 is mapped to reference claim 1 below for reference, with emphasis provided where there are differences in the limitations:
Application Claim 1:
Reference Claim 1:
A method performed by a wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
A method performed by a wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU) provisioned with a shared secret key, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a network, a first attach request message including a store and forward (S&F) mode parameter;
NOT CLAIMED
receiving, from the network, information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle;
receiving, from a network, broadcasted one or more parameters of a puzzle;
generating evidence based on solving the puzzle;
generating evidence based on solving the puzzle and injecting the shared secret key into the evidence while solving the puzzle;
and transmitting, to the network, a second attach request message including the evidence.
sending, to the network, a registration request, wherein the registration request includes the generated evidence and a WTRU identity;
It should be noted that reference claim 1 claims additional material not claimed in application claim 1. This includes the WTRU being provisioned with a shared secret key, injecting the shared secret key into the evidence while solving the puzzle, and the transmitted evidence involving a WTRU identity. These are all additions that further narrow the scope of the reference claim, and thus reference claim 1 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Reference claim 1 claims the method performed by the WTRU, which includes the receiving from the network of the puzzle parameters, generating evidence based on solving the puzzle, and transmitting to the network a message that includes the evidence. Application claim 1 mentions “receiving information indicating a puzzle,” but no additional information or limitation is given as to the nature of the information, and thus the “one or more parameters of a puzzle” in reference claim 1 would constitute information indicating a puzzle under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Lastly, reference claim 1 refers to a “registration request … includes the generated evidence”, which is synonymous to the “second attach request message including the evidence” of application claim 1.
Reference claim 1 fails to claim the first attach request message, including the S&F mode parameter.
Ou teaches in ¶ [0063], using the notation “UE” to represent “user equipment” in a method synonymous to WTRU, that “… the configuration/parameter related to S&F may … be provided during a procedure (e.g., between the UE and the [network]). The procedure may be initiated by the UE.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Ou to send an initial message from the WTRU to the network with the S&F parameter. Doing so would ensure agreement as the communication method between all transmitters in a method similar to a typical handshake protocol common throughout the art. Therefore, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the limitations are not identical the scope of the current limitations are either encompassed or rendered obvious by the scope limitations claimed in the co-pending application. Thus, the claim is rejected.
Application claim 5 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the method of claim 1, wherein the network is a non-terrestrial network (NTN).” This is patentably indistinct from reference claim 6, which claims “the method of claim 1, wherein the network is a non-terrestrial network (NTN).”
Application claim 6 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the method of claim 1, wherein the network includes a satellite.” Reference claim 7 claims “the method of claim 1, wherein the broadcasted one or more parameters of a puzzle are received from the network equipment on board a satellite.” It is obvious that, in application claim 6, if the network includes a satellite, then there must be network equipment aboard said satellite. Thus, reference claim 7 only adds additional limitations, and falls within the “species” vs “generic” argument stated above.
Application claim 7 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the method of claim 1, wherein the network includes a mobility management entity (MME) non-terrestrial (NT).” Reference claim 9 claims “the method of claim 7, wherein the network equipment on board a satellite comprises a mobility management entity (MME) or an access and mobility management function (AMF).” Once again, reference claim 9 claims the same material but adds additional limitations, and therefore falls within the “species” vs “generic” argument stated above.
Application claim 12 is mapped to reference claim 10 below for reference, with emphasis provided where there are differences in the limitations:
Application Claim 12:
Reference Claim 10:
A wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
A wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU provisioned with a shared secret key, the WTRU comprising:
a transceiver operatively coupled to a processor; wherein the WTRU is configured to:
at least one transceiver and at least one processor, wherein:
transmit, to a network, a first attach request message including a store and forward (S&F) mode parameter;
NOT CLAIMED
receive, from the network, information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle;
the at least one transceiver and at least one processor are configured to receive, from a network, broadcasted one or more parameters of a puzzle;
generate evidence based on solving the puzzle;
the at least one transceiver and at least one processor are configured to generate evidence based on solving the puzzle and injecting the shared secret key into the evidence while solving the puzzle;
and transmit, to the network, a second attach request message including the evidence.
the at least one transceiver and at least one processor are configured to send, to the network, a registration request, wherein the registration request includes the generated evidence and a WTRU identity;
NOT CLAIMED
and the at least one transceiver and at least one processor are configured to receive, from the network, a registration accept responsive to the registration request.
It should be noted that reference claim 10 claims additional material not claimed in application claim 12. This includes the WTRU being provisioned with a shared secret key, the processor being included rather than simply operatively coupled, injecting the shared secret key into the evidence while solving the puzzle, the transmitted evidence involving a WTRU identity, and eventually receiving the authorizing response. These are all additions that further narrow the scope of the reference claim, and thus reference claim 10 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 12. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Reference claim 10 claims the WTRU to receive, from a network, broadcasted one or more parameters of a puzzle, generate evidence based on solving the puzzle, and sending another message to the network which includes the generated evidence. Application claim 12 mentions “receiving information indicating a puzzle,” but no additional information or limitation is given as to the nature of the information, and thus the “one or more parameters of a puzzle” in reference claim 10 would constitute information indicating a puzzle under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Lastly, reference claim 10 refers to a “registration request … includes the generated evidence”, which is synonymous to the “second attach request message including the evidence” of application claim 12.
Reference claim 10 fails to claim the first attach request message, including the S&F mode parameter.
Ou teaches in ¶ [0063], while using the notation “UE” to represent “user equipment” in a method synonymous to WTRU, that “… the configuration/parameter related to S&F may … be provided during a procedure (e.g., between the UE and the NW). The procedure may be initiated by the UE.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Ou to send an initial message from the WTRU to the network with the S&F parameter. Doing so would ensure agreement as the communication method between all transmitters in a method similar to a typical handshake protocol common throughout the art. Therefore, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the limitations are not identical the scope of the current limitations are either encompassed or rendered obvious by the scope limitations claimed in the co-pending application. Thus, the claim is rejected.
Application claim 16 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the WTRU of claim 12, wherein the network is a non-terrestrial network (NTN).” This is patentably indistinct from reference claim 15, which claims “the WTRU of claim 10, wherein the network is a non-terrestrial network (NTN).”
Application claim 17 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the WTRU of claim 12, wherein the network includes a satellite.” Reference claim 16 claims “the WTRU of claim 10, wherein the broadcasted one or more parameters of a puzzle are received from network equipment on board a satellite.” It is obvious that, in application claim 17, if the network includes a satellite, then there must be network equipment aboard said satellite. Thus, reference claim 16 only adds additional limitations, and falls within the “species” vs “generic” argument stated above.
Application claim 18 is rejected as a nonstatutory double patent, as the claim adds the additional limitation “the WTRU of claim 12, wherein the network includes a mobility management entity (MME) non-terrestrial (NT).” Reference claim 18 claims “the WTRU of claim 16, wherein the network equipment on board a satellite comprises a mobility management entity (MME) or an access and mobility management function (AMF).” Once again, reference claim 18 claims the same material but adds additional limitations, and therefore falls within the “species” vs “generic” argument stated above.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 33.700-29 v0.4.0 (2024-08), “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on Security Aspects of 5G Satellite Access in the 5G architecture; Phase 3 (Release 19)” (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”).
3GPP teaches a communication method between a network node and user equipment (UE) in §6.8 – “Solution #8: Solution on preventing DoS attacks in S&F operation”. The method is demonstrated with Figure 6.8.2-2 shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1 and claim 12, 3GPP teaches the concept of a WTRU “A method performed by a wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU), and the associated WTRU comprising a transceiver operatively coupled to a processor; wherein the WTRU is configured to transmitting, to a network, a first attach request message including a store and forward (S&F) mode parameter; (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 2: “The UE initiates … by transmitting … attach request message. This message consists of … S&F indicator in addition to existing parameters…” [Shown in Step 2 of Figure 6.8.2-2]) [Comment: the transmission functionality of the WTRU means at least one transmitter] … and transmitting, to the network, a second attach request message … (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 7: “The UE retries the network connection by transmitting the Attach Request.” [Shown in Step 7 of Figure 6.8.2-2]) [Comment: the computing functionality of the WTRU means at least one processor].”
3GPP fails to teach in Solution #8 “… receiving, from the network, information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle; generating evidence based on solving the puzzle; and transmitting, to the network, a second attach request message including the evidence.” However, it does teach having a step where the network responds with an authentication request (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 8: “The satellite sends Authentication Request …” [Shown in Step 8 of Figure 6.8.2-2]), having the WTRU processes the request via a computation (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 9: “At the receipt of the [authentication request], … the UE computes a response …” [Shown in Step 9 of Figure 6.8.2-2]), and the WTRU responding to the authentication request (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 10: “UE responds with Authentication Response message …” [Shown in Step 10 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).
3GPP teaches another communication method between a network node and a UE, specifically designed to mitigate the potential denial of service attack in the Store and Forward Satellite Operation in §6.21 – “Solution #21: Remediation of unauthenticated (D)DOS in S&F”. The method is demonstrated with Figure 6.21.2-1 shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
951
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3GPP teaches in Solution #21 the step of the WTRU “receiving, from the network, information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle; (Solution #21, §6.21.2 Step 4: “The equipment on board of satellite … forwards the puzzle to the UE.” [Shown in Step 4 of Figure 6.21.2-1] [Comment: forwarding the parameters of a puzzle that are necessary to solve it is functionally identical to forwarding the puzzle, and forwarding the puzzle serves to indicate the presence of the puzzle]) generating evidence based on solving the puzzle; (Solution #21, §6.21.2 Step 5: “The UE solves the puzzle and produces the evidence.” [Shown in Step 5 of Figure 6.21.2-1]) and transmitting, to the network, a second attach request message including the evidence (Solution #21, §6.21.2 Step 6: “The UE re-issues the Registration Request with the evidence of solved puzzle.” [Shown in Step 6 of Figure 6.21.2-1]) [Comment: a re-issued registration request is functionally identical to a second attach request].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the puzzle steps of 3GPP Solution #21 to the communication protocol of 3GPP Solution #8. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because 3GPP recognized that Solution #8 required cryptographic computation to combat the threat of a DoS attack (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0002]: “… the satellite and the UE check the authenticity of each other using the asymmetric cryptosystem (i.e., ECCSI), which prevents the threat of DoS attack …”), but that additional computation was worth the mitigation (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0004]: “Therefore, this solution might require slightly more computational resource, but it will eliminate waste of storage resource of a satellite, which causes DoS attack …”). It finishes by admitting that the method has a weakness, being that it assumes that the user and network already have pre-allocated credentials (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0005]: “Assumptions: A set of credentials for ECCSI is provisioned to the UE and Satellite.”). In comparison, 3GPP already recognized this weakness and considers the use of puzzles in Solution #21 to overcome this issue (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0001]: “[This solution] … does not need a pre-established security association for "authenticity check," or pre-authorization of UEs to remediate threats …”), while remaining within the computational resource confines originally found in Solution #8 (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0002]: “Such an additional workload can be an acceptable tradeoff for remediation of (D)DOS attack under the conditions where the remediation of vulnerability to both, malicious and benign (D)DOS is more important than the additional workload.”), as well as the hardware confines (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0005-0006]: “The equipment on board of satellite (e.g., eNB or gNB) has to be able to produce puzzles and associated parameters. No additional cryptographic functionality above hash and encryption is envisioned to be needed. The UE has to be able to solve the selected puzzle and produce the evidence. No additional cryptographic functionality above hash and encryption is envisioned to be needed.”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP Solution #8 to include the teachings of 3GPP Solution #21, as there existed teachings, suggestions, and/or motivations in the arts that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the parts to combine them together to arrive at the claimed invention (KSR(G), TSM, MPEP 2143).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Specifically, as noted above, 3GPP Solution #8 already taught the steps for authentication, and it would have been a simple and obvious substitution to swap one authentication method for another, obtaining predictable results. (KSR(B), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 2 and claim 13, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (1/12), further comprising: receiving, from the network, an attach reject message responsive to the S&F mode parameter (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 3: “… the satellite stores the received attach request message and transmits signed Attach Reject message.” [Shown in Step 3 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).”
Per claim 3 and claim 14, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (1/12), further comprising: receiving, from the network, the S&F mode parameter (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 1: “The satellite provides … S&F indicator indicating that the satellite is operating in S&F mode.” [Shown in Step 1 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).”
Per claim 4 and claim 15, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (3/14), wherein the S&F mode parameter is received in an S&F policy provision from the network (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 1: “The satellite provides … S&F indicator indicating that the satellite is operating in S&F mode. These may be included in the SIB (System Information Broadcast) message.” [Shown in Step 1 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).”
Per claim 5 and claim 16, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (1/12), wherein the network is a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (§1 – Scope: “The present document studies the security and privacy aspects of 5G satellite access …”) [Note: a network involving a satellite in inherently a non-terrestrial network.].”
Per claim 6 and claim 17, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (1/12), wherein the network includes a satellite (§1 – Scope: “The present document studies the security and privacy aspects of 5G satellite access …”).”
Per claim 7 and claim 18, 3GPP further teaches “The method of claim (1/12), wherein the network includes a mobility management entity (MME) non-terrestrial (NT) (Solution #8, §6.8.1 - Introduction: “In this solution, it is assumed that a satellite includes eNB and the functionality of MME related to the authentication called MME (NT).”).”
Per claim 8, 3GPP teaches “A network node comprising: a transceiver operatively coupled to a processor; wherein the network node is configured to: receive, from a wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU), (Solution #8, Figure 6.8.2-2 demonstrates the UE communicating with the satellite network node) [Comment: the transmission functionality of the network node means at least one transmitter] a first attach request message including a store and forward (S&F) mode parameter; (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 2: “The UE initiates … by transmitting … attach request message. This message consists of … S&F indicator in addition to existing parameters…” [Shown in Step 2 of Figure 6.8.2-2]) [Comment: the computing functionality of the network node means at least one processor] transmit, to the WTRU, based on the S&F mode parameter (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 3: “If the verification is successful, the satellite … transmits …” [Shown in Step 3 of Figure 6.8.2-2]) … and receive, from the WTRU, a second attach request message … (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 7: “The UE retries the network connection by transmitting the Attach Request.” [Shown in Step 7 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).”
3GPP fails to teach in Solution #8 “…transmit, to the WTRU, based on the S&F mode parameter, information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle; and receive, from the WTRU, a second attach request message including evidence, wherein the evidence is responsive to the puzzle.” However, it does teach having a step where the network node responds with an authentication request (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 8: “The satellite sends Authentication Request …” [Shown in Step 8 of Figure 6.8.2-2]), and the WTRU responding to the authentication request (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 3, Step 10: “UE responds with Authentication Response message …” [Shown in Step 10 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).
3GPP in Solution #21 teaches the step of the network node “transmit, to the WTRU, … information indicating a puzzle and one or more parameters of the puzzle; (Solution #21, §6.21.2 Step 4: “The equipment on board of satellite … forwards the puzzle to the UE.” [Shown in Step 4 of Figure 6.21.2-1] [Comment: forwarding the parameters of a puzzle that are necessary to solve it is functionally identical to forwarding the puzzle, and forwarding the puzzle serves to indicate the presence of the puzzle]) and receive, from the WTRU, a second attach request message including evidence, wherein the evidence is responsive to the puzzle (Solution #21, §6.21.2 Step 6: “The UE re-issues the Registration Request with the evidence of solved puzzle.” [Shown in Step 6 of Figure 6.21.2-1]) [Comment: a re-issued registration request is functionally identical to a second attach request].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the puzzle steps of 3GPP Solution #21 to the communication protocol of 3GPP Solution #8. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because 3GPP recognized that 3GPP Solution #8 required cryptographic computation to combat the threat of a DoS attack (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0002]: “… the satellite and the UE check the authenticity of each other using the asymmetric cryptosystem (i.e., ECCSI), which prevents the threat of DoS attack …”), but that additional computation was worth the mitigation (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0004]: “Therefore, this solution might require slightly more computational resource, but it will eliminate waste of storage resource of a satellite, which causes DoS attack …”). It finishes by admitting that the method has a weakness, being that it assumes that the user and network already have pre-allocated credentials (Solution #8, §6.8.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0005]: “Assumptions: A set of credentials for ECCSI is provisioned to the UE and Satellite.”). In comparison, 3GPP already recognized this weakness and considers the use of puzzles in Solution #21 to overcome this issue (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0001]: “[This solution] … does not need a pre-established security association for "authenticity check," or pre-authorization of UEs to remediate threats …”), while remaining within the computational resource confines originally found in Solution #8 (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0002]: “Such an additional workload can be an acceptable tradeoff for remediation of (D)DOS attack under the conditions where the remediation of vulnerability to both, malicious and benign (D)DOS is more important than the additional workload.”), as well as the hardware confines (Solution #21, §6.21.3 – Evaluation ¶ [0005-0006]: “The equipment on board of satellite (e.g., eNB or gNB) has to be able to produce puzzles and associated parameters. No additional cryptographic functionality above hash and encryption is envisioned to be needed. The UE has to be able to solve the selected puzzle and produce the evidence. No additional cryptographic functionality above hash and encryption is envisioned to be needed.”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP Solution #8 to include the teachings of 3GPP Solution #21, as there existed teachings, suggestions, and/or motivations in the arts that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the parts to combine them together to arrive at the claimed invention (KSR(G), TSM, MPEP 2143).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Specifically, as noted above, 3GPP Solution #8 already taught the steps for authentication, and it would have been a simple and obvious substitution to swap one authentication method for another, obtaining predictable results. (KSR(B), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 9, 3GPP fails to teach in Solution #8 “The network node of claim 8, wherein the puzzle is transmitted if the S&F mode parameter indicates a puzzle and an S&F policy requires puzzles.” However, it does teach the existence of the parameter, and it being contained in a policy (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 1: “The satellite provides … S&F indicator indicating that the satellite is operating in S&F mode. These may be included in the SIB (System Information Broadcast) message.” [Shown in Step 1 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).
3GPP teaches in Solution #21 “The network node of claim 8, wherein the puzzle is transmitted if the S&F mode parameter indicates a puzzle and an S&F policy requires puzzles (Solution #21, as shown in Figure 6.21.2-1, “1. Registration Request” is responded to with “2. Decides to offer a puzzle to throttle the (D)DOS attack.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ability to decide to transmit the puzzle of 3GPP Solution #21 into the communication protocol of 3GPP Solution #8.One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically allowing, allowing for the puzzle step to be optional based on communication parameters (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 10, 3GPP teaches “The network node of claim 9, wherein the network node is located in a satellite (§1 – Scope: “The present document studies the security and privacy aspects of 5G satellite access …”) and the S&F policy is received from a terrestrial network node (Solution #8, §6.8.2 Phase 1, Step 2: “The UE initiates … by transmitting … attach request message. This message consists of … S&F indicator in addition to existing parameters…” [Shown in Step 2 of Figure 6.8.2-2]).”
Per claim 11, 3GPP teaches “The network node of claim 10, wherein the network node includes an mobility management entity (MME) non-terrestrial (NT) (Solution #8, §6.8.1 - Introduction: “In this solution, it is assumed that a satellite includes eNB and the functionality of MME related to the authentication called MME (NT).”).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ferdi et al. (US 12432559 B2) teaches a WTRU using hash and cryptographic functionality for the purposes of communication authentication.
Ryu (EP 3751908 A1) teaches a non-terrestrial network (NTN) using satellites and mobility management entities (MME).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF whose telephone number is (571)270-5794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF/Examiner, Art Unit 2631 /SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights